United 93 -- The Movie - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-26-2006, 09:57 AM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:49 AM
^ after reading that, i am now more certain that i won't go see it. the precariousness of life already freaks me out enough, i don't need another sobering reminder of how precious it all is, and how fate turns on a dime.

i have no problems with people seeing it, nor do i have problems with it being made (heck, i even worked on, briefly, Discovery's "The Flight That Fought Back") i just don't want to see it.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-26-2006, 11:03 AM   #32
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 77
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by blueyedpoet
Am I the only one who has never quiet felt right about United 93? I'm not suggesting that Bush was behind 9/11, I'm just saying I often wonder if the passangers took over the plane - and if they did, why didn't they try to land it? - or if the plane was shot down.
The recently-released cockpit recordings suggest that the hijackers flew the plane into the ground, believing they were about to taken over by the passengers. And as for passengers attempting to land the plane, I would imagine that would be an extremely difficult thing to do given the complexity of a modern jetliner.
__________________

__________________
redsox04 is offline  
Old 04-26-2006, 12:43 PM   #33
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
I don't know that any generation is "Greater" or less than any other generation.

"The Greatest Generation" did show some remarkable commitment to fighting facism. . .after Pearl Harbor was attacked anyway. The "Greatest Generation" by and large stood by while a U.S. citizens had their property virutally confisicated and were placed in camps. While some members of "The Greatest Generation" fought and died to stop Hitler's racist regime their families back home had to sit at the back of the bus and couldn't vote in local elections.

On the other hand, just five years ago, some this generation's "self-indulgent" and "unwilling to sacrifice" members acted to stop terrorists from crashing yet another plane, others went in to burning buildings to save lives.

I don't say this to disrespect those who fought for our country (or those who refused to for conscience sake). My father in law is a veteran. I met over 100 veterans who, during World War II, fought on the island where I live now, and that was one of the most amazing experiences of my life.

But. . .

Perhaps, people are just people. Maybe the "conventional wisdom" of society changes. Maybe what causes Hollywood chooses to champion change. (And by the way, Hollywood has always existed to make money. They make what sells. Period.). But at the end of the day people are people, capable of great heroism, capable of great cowardice.
Thank you for this post.

You've touched on some of the more painful mixed feelings and ambivalencies myself and many others have always felt for the unquestioningly high regard in which the achievements of the WWII generation are held here and elsewhere. I also have known many veterans of both the Pacific and European theaters of combat, and share your awe for the heroism they showed, as well as reverance and sorrow for all their comrades who didn't live to tell their stories. We truly do owe them things that are almost beyond conceiving.

At the same time...on a more personal and, I suppose, selfish level, there were so many failures and mistakes made that I can't quite get around either. I can't quite get around all the things that happened to my parents' families and to millions of others like them, both during the war and in the limbo of the DP camps afterwards...more years lost because there was nowhere safe to go, no one and nothing left to go back home to. How many lives, how many little worlds unto themselves could have been saved if the Allies had undertaken certain actions earlier, if the United States had entered the war earlier than we did, if so many things that were turned a blind eye to until the last minute hadn't been...Then too, I think of all the childhood friends I had, growing up in a mostly black Southern community, whose grandfathers, uncles, cousins had been lynched, dispossessed, and otherwise subjected to the most awful of indignities while the bravest of stands in favor of freedom and equality were being taken elsewhere. Yet for every seemingly preventable loss and tragedy I can think of like these, there is another one I could point to that...in light of all the things that miserable war was destined to be from the beginning...seems wholly inevitable, completely beyond anyone's power to have prevented. Millions would have died either way, country after country would have seen its economy and infrastructure and prior way of life ruthlessly run into the ground either way. And who am I, really, when all is said and done, to fixate on some particular loss or tragedy as more immeasurable or regrettable than any other. I cannot truthfully or with certainty say that in the end I haven't personally benefited from it.

I'm sure the story this movie has to tell is is in many ways the same...a great deal of heroism, a great deal of bravery in the face of certain death, shot through--for the rest of us--with an awful lot of painful and disturbing if-onlys, I-wonders, and because this particular conflict is still going on, fears about where this is all headed. But as you say, ultimately from Hollywood's standpoint it's all just a story, nothing more, and the only real responsibility can be to tell it well. Like these public-service billboards we have stateside, "Courage. Pass it on..." Far too tidy and succinct to capture the way things really unfold when genuine crisis ensues. Hopefully this film will be taken as I'm sure it's meant to be, as a tribute and an inspiration not of the feelgood sort, but as a kind of collective memory pointing the way, without delusions of invincibility, towards how we should, must respond when faced with the terrifyingly unprecedented--whatever form it takes, and whatever best possible action on the part of each individual it calls for. Of course, the same goes for the much murkier threats to freedom that come from inside, and there are valuable stories to be told there too.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-26-2006, 12:51 PM   #34
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 03:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
http://www.variety.com/VR1117942055.html

"A wrenching reminder of 9/11 was surrounded with red-carpet hoopla at the world premiere of "United 93," which kicked off the fifth edition of the Tribeca film fest Tuesday at GothamGotham's Ziegfeld theater.

After the film's devastating final scene, the screen abruptly went dark and a cacophony of loud, uncontrollable sobs could be heard coming from the back of the theater, where many of the nearly 100 family members of 9/11 victims were seated.

Some were seeing the film for the first time. As more than 1,100 viewers filed out, a funereal silence filled the theater.

And as the sobbing continued after the screening, there were sounds of other people comforting the family members and taking them outside."



I don't think I could bear seeing this movie right now, if ever.

It's just too soon.
__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 04-26-2006, 01:00 PM   #35
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
"If anything should be controversial, it is Hollywood going AWOL while its country fights the scourge of our time, Islamic totalitarianism. For five years, America has been battling people who are dedicated to destroying every value that Hollywood claims to care most about -- freedom, tolerance, women's rights, secular government, equality for gays -- and Hollywood has yet to make a film depicting, let alone honoring, this war."


which war is he talking about? the GWOT? or the Iraq War? the two are not the same thing, and in fact, women's rights and gay rights in Iraq are already sliding, and will fall much, much farther once an elected theocracy comes totally to power as it probably will.

as for "honoring" this war -- we've been fighting Islamic terrorists on screen for over a decade now. think, "True Lies," that terrible airplane movie with Halle Berry and Kurt Russel ... most Mulim, or even Indian, actors in Hollywood have a difficult time getting a part that isn't as a terrorist.

simply because there has been nothing on Iraq itself doesn't mean that the "evil Muslim" hasn't fully infiltrated American popular culture at all levels. it has, and has done so for years.

it seems as if Prager wants a "Saving Private Ryan" for the Iraqi set at best, at worst he wants a red, white, and blue-dripping piece of propagandistic poo. could it not also be that Iraq does not lend itself to easy truths and unabashed pride in our country the way that WW2 does? has Prager seen many Vietnam movies? aren't those reflections of a more complex time, a more ambiguous mission, a difficult set of circumstances? perhaps Iraq much more like Vietnam in this sense, where lines are not clearly drawn, the nature of the combat itself is not lines of Panzer tanks but shadowy insurgents who fade back into the sand brick urban landscape as quickly as they emerged.

it would be very disappointing if Prager thought all movies were to do would be to "celebrate" and/or "honor" history -- at their best, they should explore history and attempt some sort of verisimilitude of experience that is only possible through cinema. read as many D-Day books as you want, none of them can convey the visceral, adrenalized sense of combat one gets from the opening 20 minutes of "Private Ryan." and what that film does is take heroic moments in American history and remind you that WW2 was every bit as bloody, as traumatic, as filled with mindless death and destruction as any other conflict. it also did a marvelous job at depicting modern, mechanized warfare -- how machines turn man into meat, and the randomness of the ferocity, and the ferocity of the randomness. ultimately, where "private ryan" fails is in the god-awful cemetary scenes that bookmark the film.

but i suppose in Prager's world we need such sentimental tripe shoved down our throats because we're all too think to deal with a bit of ambiguity and moral complexity. yes, let's demand our directors be obedient little Leni Riefenstahls who used her considerable talents to serve the needs of the fatherland.

(/rant off)
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-26-2006, 01:34 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 03:49 AM
Ebert And Roeper give it two thumbs up, there is an audio review on their site

This is from a Reuters article I just read. I agree, we still haven't really confronted it in many ways. Maybe in some ways it is a form of denial, and maybe it is a denial of sorts to be afraid of the movie. Of course there are so many other reasons to not want to see it, it is strictly a personal decision for everyone.

"Gordon Felt, a relative of a Flight 93 passenger, stepped before the podium to discuss the $30 million private capital campaign for the memorial, to thank Universal for donating 10% of its opening-weekend gross to the fund and to introduce writer-director Greengrass, whom he thanked for approaching family members in order to present an accurate portrait of their loved ones.

"Our guides to the foundation and legitimacy of this film are the family members," Greengrass said, also mentioning the air traffic controllers, servicemen and others he met with to study the 9/11 Commission Report.

"Universal supported this film unswervingly," he added. "Like many, they believe in the power of cinema to challenge us and change us."

"I wanted to support my friend Ron Meyer and his company for doing something of this significance," MPAA chairman Dan Glickman said. "Is it too soon to make it? I think people will judge that for themselves. My judgment is it's not too soon. The longer you get away from it, the further your personal memories are of it. In this film, people can see how average people can rise out of their shells and do amazing things."

Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, who heads New York's New School University, said, "Having been on the 9/11 commission, I've heard from victims' families who say this film tells the story in a respectful and restrained way. I feel we need to be reminded of it. My wildest dream would be to recapture the spirit we had after September 11."

But perhaps actor Gabriel Byrne best summed up feelings about the film: "I can understand why some people don't want to see the film, and I can see why there's a compulsion to confront it, because in many ways we still haven't confronted it."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-26-2006, 04:39 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
angelordevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Inside a sound
Posts: 5,827
Local Time: 05:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


But perhaps actor Gabriel Byrne best summed up feelings about the film: "I can understand why some people don't want to see the film, and I can see why there's a compulsion to confront it, because in many ways we still haven't confronted it."

A much clearer version of what I was trying to say.
__________________
angelordevil is offline  
Old 04-27-2006, 03:32 AM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Having just seen it...

It's a fascinating experience, watching this film. I say "experience" because I think that's how audiences, American in particular, will encounter UNITED93. Throughout the film, I kept thinking, "I remember what I was doing then. That's when my wife called me to tell me about the second plane. That's when I got the call that the Pentagon had been hit." It's impossible to divorce yourself from the experience of the day, and as a result, the experience of the film is far more visceral than even the filmmakers may have intended.

Having said that, it's an incredible piece of filmmaking. Working from a semi-improvised script, with many of the lieutenants and officers playing themselves, Greengrass establishes a you-are-there style, unprecedented by the simple virtue of the fact that these events were real. While the film goes to great length to ensure that it is presenting a fictionalized version of events, the painstaking research the filmmakers undertook means that it's perhaps the best approximation of what happened that day.

It's perhaps wise that it took a British filmmaker to tell a consummate American story. American sensibilities these days tend to veer from one end of the spectrum to the other -- from self-flagellation for the events of the day, to suspicion or outright demonization of the Arabs at the heart of the plot. Perhaps we are still too close to the story to tell it correctly, but Greengrass, as an outsider, has a clearer eye that is perhaps able to tell a story we yet cannot. Moments that would be considered jingo-istic by an American filmmaker (Michael Bay, for example), come across as simple acts of heroism writ large -- a distinctly British perspective, to be sure, but perhaps a more accurate one on a day when "Let's roll" was probably less bellowed than it was whispered.

At times the film hits too close for comfort -- while the terrorists pray their last prayers to Allah, many on the plane say the Our Father (perhaps simply to note a common humanity; perhaps to illustrate that not all Gods are cut from the same image; it's really for the beholder to say). The government comes across fairly positively, by virtue of the fact that with no warning or lead time, in three hours the country was completely shut down. (No small thing, and unprecedented, as the film points out.)

But the government is not without culpability -- the hijacking go-to guy in the federal office is away from his desk, without a back-up man, and the President and Vice-President are both incommunicado, presumably being shuffled to secure locations.

Overall, however, the film stays away from these macro-moments, preferring to keep its lens on the ground, focusing on the woman and men who heroically shouldered the burdens of giants on the fateful day.

WARNING: the film is not for the squeamish. I sat through it with my neck and back slowly growing more tense. Blood and violence is kept to a minimum; this film's true power is the emotional havoc it touches. You watch the film hoping the ATC officers will catch AA11 and UA175 in time; you remember the day and you know they won't. When UA93 seals its doors and pulls away from the gate, you know the plane has just become a tomb. And when, in the film's climactic moments, the passengers rush the cockpit, you can certainly believe that they breached it without being able to escape their tragic fate.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 04-27-2006, 03:45 AM   #39
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Having sat through the whole sept 11 thing as well, i feel deeply for them and their families, and i have paid my respects to ground zero, but i believe this film is uneccessary. No one knows for sure what happened in the plane, and i have read many reports saying tha the terrorists lost control of the plane and thats why it crashed rather then the passengers fighting back. I am glad that is wasn't made by an american, as i do believe an outside perspective is needed, and not to demonise the terrorists, who were doing something they justly believe in.

I also think its not really a story to be told seeing we have so few facts. People went up in a plane, plane came down, everyone died. Its been done a thousand times and i dont think the movie was warrented, and feel that it was made to make money off the backs of one of the scariest and saddest things that has happened this century.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 04-27-2006, 06:00 AM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
not to demonise the terrorists, who were doing something they justly believe in.


Their deeds are what demonises them, those mass murderers, like many others, did so in the service of Allah and it shouldn't be white washed - demonise all Muslims, no, but the religious ideology of the terrorists should be openly discussed.

Humanise them for what they are, believers

As for "justly believing" that those who are not Muslims have been offered the "righteous" path and refused therefore are fair targets for death I can't quite wrap my mind around that being "justly believed in".
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-27-2006, 08:05 AM   #41
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 07:49 PM
justly in THEIR mind....not mine. I don't believe in any religion so therefore anything done in the name of religion is to me, done in the name of a lie. But for them, they TRULY believe that america is the enemy, and therefore what they were doing was pleasing their warped views of islam. And sadly, they are human just like every one of us - regardless of what they did.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 04-27-2006, 01:45 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
I don't believe in any religion so therefore anything done in the name of religion is to me, done in the name of a lie.
So Bono's crusade to save Africa, which is heavily steeped in the scripture's call to look after the poor, is a lie?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 04-28-2006, 03:02 AM   #43
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 07:49 PM
well its not only the SCRIPTURE that tells us to look after the poor, so of course i am behind the crusade to save Africa's starving. But if they were handing out christian propaganda along with rice, then i would have a problem because they are letting their religion over run something there.

I think saving people is called COMPASSION, which you don't need to be religious to feel.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 04-28-2006, 03:11 AM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


So Bono's crusade to save Africa, which is heavily steeped in the scripture's call to look after the poor, is a lie?
Yes it is.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-28-2006, 03:35 AM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
Having just seen it...

It's a fascinating experience, watching this film. I say "experience" because I think that's how audiences, American in particular, will encounter UNITED93. Throughout the film, I kept thinking, "I remember what I was doing then. That's when my wife called me to tell me about the second plane. That's when I got the call that the Pentagon had been hit." It's impossible to divorce yourself from the experience of the day, and as a result, the experience of the film is far more visceral than even the filmmakers may have intended.

Having said that, it's an incredible piece of filmmaking. Working from a semi-improvised script, with many of the lieutenants and officers playing themselves, Greengrass establishes a you-are-there style, unprecedented by the simple virtue of the fact that these events were real. While the film goes to great length to ensure that it is presenting a fictionalized version of events, the painstaking research the filmmakers undertook means that it's perhaps the best approximation of what happened that day.

It's perhaps wise that it took a British filmmaker to tell a consummate American story. American sensibilities these days tend to veer from one end of the spectrum to the other -- from self-flagellation for the events of the day, to suspicion or outright demonization of the Arabs at the heart of the plot. Perhaps we are still too close to the story to tell it correctly, but Greengrass, as an outsider, has a clearer eye that is perhaps able to tell a story we yet cannot. Moments that would be considered jingo-istic by an American filmmaker (Michael Bay, for example), come across as simple acts of heroism writ large -- a distinctly British perspective, to be sure, but perhaps a more accurate one on a day when "Let's roll" was probably less bellowed than it was whispered.

At times the film hits too close for comfort -- while the terrorists pray their last prayers to Allah, many on the plane say the Our Father (perhaps simply to note a common humanity; perhaps to illustrate that not all Gods are cut from the same image; it's really for the beholder to say). The government comes across fairly positively, by virtue of the fact that with no warning or lead time, in three hours the country was completely shut down. (No small thing, and unprecedented, as the film points out.)

But the government is not without culpability -- the hijacking go-to guy in the federal office is away from his desk, without a back-up man, and the President and Vice-President are both incommunicado, presumably being shuffled to secure locations.

Overall, however, the film stays away from these macro-moments, preferring to keep its lens on the ground, focusing on the woman and men who heroically shouldered the burdens of giants on the fateful day.

WARNING: the film is not for the squeamish. I sat through it with my neck and back slowly growing more tense. Blood and violence is kept to a minimum; this film's true power is the emotional havoc it touches. You watch the film hoping the ATC officers will catch AA11 and UA175 in time; you remember the day and you know they won't. When UA93 seals its doors and pulls away from the gate, you know the plane has just become a tomb. And when, in the film's climactic moments, the passengers rush the cockpit, you can certainly believe that they breached it without being able to escape their tragic fate.
Great review.

Granted, movies, ESPECIALLY, Hollywood ones have become a rather tacky and manipulative way of making money. But. . .they can also be art. And one of the things art does is address and comment on the tragedies that befall us all. 9/11 is one of those tragedies and I'm not sure that there is anything inherently wrong with making (or viewing) a film that seeks to memorialize, understand, share what happened on Flight 93. Based on nathan1977's review it would seem this movie has done so respectfully.

Art has always dealt with the horrors of war, and not always after a "suitable"amount of time has passed.

What was that painting by Picasso? Guernica?
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com